W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webevents@w3.org > July to September 2012

Draft Minutes: 7 August 2012 call

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:26:21 -0400
Message-ID: <502141AD.4080100@nokia.com>
To: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the August 7 voice conference are available at 
the following and copied below:


WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send 
them to the public-webevents mail list before August 21 (the day of our 
next call). In the absence of any changes, these minutes will be 
considered approved.

-Thanks, ArtB


       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                      Web Events WG Voice Conference

07 Aug 2012


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JulSep/0005.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/08/07-webevents-irc


           Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Scott_Gonzαlez, Rick_Byers,
           Matt_Brubeck, Doug_Schepers





      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Tweak Agenda
          2. [6]Announcements
          3. [7]Getting TE v1 spec out of Candidate Recommendation
          4. [8]Test suite
          5. [9]AoB
      * [10]Summary of Action Items

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    Date: 7 August 2012

    <mbrubeck> //me having dialing trouble

Tweak Agenda

    AB: a draft agenda was sent to the list on August 6
    lSep/0005.html. I'm going to move the IndieUI TF status to
    announcements. Any change requests?

      [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JulSep/0005.html.


    AB: the Touch Events PAG is now closed
    lSep/0004.html. The PAG recommended the WG continue with Touch
    Events v1 spec "as is".
    ... I want to mention that Matt Brubeck's input was invaluable
    to the PAG so a Very Big Thanks to Matt and thanks to Doug too
    for his work on the PAG!
    ... I appreciate their efforts!
    ... any questions/comments about the PAG?
    ... 2nd announcement: the IndieUI Task Force
    [13]http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/IUITF has now had several
    calls [14]http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/wiki/Minutes.
    ... the Call for Proposals ended July 15
    /0012.html. Apple submitted an input for the Events spec
    0106/UserInterfaceIndependence.html. IBM and others submitted
    an input for the Context spec

      [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JulSep/0004.html.
      [13] http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/IUITF
      [14] http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/wiki/Minutes.
      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui/2012Jun/0012.html.
      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2010JulSep/att-0106/UserInterfaceIndependence.html.
      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui/2012Aug/0000.html.

    <smaug_> argh, I can't join the call today

    AB: it would be really good to get broader participation from
    others, especially browser vendors, and in particular Google,
    Mozilla and Opera.

    RB: I've paying some attention

    … want to get the Android team to participate

    … there is some confusion re what scenarios are A11Y specific
    versus more general scenarios

    MB: I haven't followed it yet

    … I expect someone to follow when they have some time

    AB: thanks for the updates

    RB: would like to get something like gesture events

    … I think there are some important scenarios that are missing
    from Apple's input

    … Just looking at Apple's input, seems like it is more about

    … If maninpuating using touch with scaling, then we will want
    to be involved

    DS: the TF is coming from an accessibility perspective

    … dealing with browser vendors and APIs isn't their "strong

    … they can learn from us and browser vendors and we can learn
    from them too

    … Would be really valuable to have you (Rick) participate

    … and start with UCs

    RB: it's good to see a concrete proposal

    … we will try to add our scenarios

    AB: that would be great Rick
    ... if you want to join the TF, please contact Doug

Getting TE v1 spec out of Candidate Recommendation (CR)

    AB: a primary task now is to get TEv1 out of CR
    l and that means we need to complete the test suite and to get
    at least two implementations to pass each test.
    ... first, what is the Implementation status?

      [18] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/v1/touchevents.html

    RB: I believe Chrome on Windows and Chrome on ChromeOS have
    experimental builds

    … Chrome on Android has supported it for a long time

    … There could be some minor diffs

    … but the intent is to be completely compliant to the spec (v1)

    … If there are diffs, I would consider them as bugs

    MB: the intent of v1 was to specifify what has actually be

    … if there were places where implementations differed, we
    intentionally did not specify that

    … I haven't run our implementation against the spec recently

    … but our intent is to comply with the spec and to change our
    impl to match the spec (if needed)

    <rbyers> Details on Chrome support for touch events:

    AB: did Opera implement TEv1?

    <rbyers> Current builds on Windows and ChromeOS have touch
    support behind a flag (about:flags - 'Enable touch events'

    MB: yes, Opera Mobile implements it

Test suite

    AB: the TE spec's test suite is
    [19]http://w3c-test.org/webevents/tests/touch-events-v1/. We
    have submissions from Mozilla only.

      [19] http://w3c-test.org/webevents/tests/touch-events-v1/.

    <rbyers> On by default in Chrome 22 - going to beta mid-aug

    AB: we also have the Touch events test assertions tables that
    Cathy created
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TestAssertions. We
    discussed this data on January 17
    ... so there are questions about what needs to be done; who is
    going to do the work, etc.

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TestAssertions.
      [21] http://www.w3.org/2012/01/17-webevents-minutes.html#item03.

    DS: we are having a similar discussion in the Audio WG

    … W3C is trying to do more about testing e.g. sharing resources
    across WGs

    AB: are you hiring someone?

    DS: yes, we are going to hire someone

    … in the meantime, I can get PLH or MikeSmith to come and talk
    about the testing

    MB: we added some tests to tip but did not merge them to v1

    … I can take an action to update the v1 branch

    <scribe> ACTION: brubeck Merge touch event tests to v1 branch
    [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-94 - Merge touch event tests to v1
    branch [on Matt Brubeck - due 2012-08-14].

    RB: Matt, do you share tests between Mozilla and the WG's

    MB: the W3C tests are different than our tests

    RB: Webkit has some related tests that could be used

    MB: Webkit and Gecko tests aren't really focused on spec

    DS: we would like to change that i.e. to make sure our tests
    are directly usable by implementers

    MB: we do import 3rd party test suites into our infrastructure

    … f.ex. we do that with WebGL tests

    … it should be possible to get W3C testharness tests to be
    ported to Gecko infra

    … The tests we have were created as I wrote the spec

    RB: wonder if some abstraction layer would be useful here

    … Can we get one automated test?

    … If so, then I can see if I can make it work in our test infra

    DS: would like to make the tests automated

    AB: in other WGs (e.g. WebApps and HTML), a "Test Facilitator"
    has been designated and they are "stewards" for the test suite.
    Any volunteers for that role?

    MB: I have taking that role so I can do that

    AB: thanks very much Matt!

    MB: I think we have one test that passes on FF and Opera but
    fails on Webkit

    RB: please send me the details

    MB: I think we also have a test that only applies to v2

    … so I need to fix that

    … I just ran the tests we do have on 4 browser ;)

    AB: so do we have a rough idea about how many more tests are

    DS: I suspect we only have a very small coverage right now

    … we can look at what other groups are doing

    … must go beyond feature testing

    MB: we have one test file (single touch) that has 17 tests and
    about 30 test assertions

    … we have a multi-touch test file too and it has several tests
    with more assertions

    … I suspect we are about 25% of the way there

    AB: given the v1 spec is mostly about documenting history,
    perhaps it would be acceptable to create a "minimalist" test

    DS: I wouldn't object to that

    RB: I can understand that but there is some risk

    … we don't want implementations to miss important cases

    … and thus have interop problems

    … Touch is important now and will continue to be even more

    … so we need to do a good job with the test suite.

    DS: as always, we need to also consider resource constraints

    RB: agree there is a tradeoff

    … If v2 is too slow to come out, the web will move on without

    DS: would like to get Microsoft to participate in v2

    RB: yes, would like to get them to help with v2 too

    <mbrubeck> Ahh, the identifiedTouch method is implemented by
    Gecko and by BlackBerry OS 6.0 (but not by Safari, Chrome,
    Opera, or Android)

    DS: I have talked to Microsoft about participating

    AB: I have talked to them too

    DS: we need to review their work for v2

    MB: yes agree but we need to be careful about IP issues

    RB: would be nice to know why Microsoft won't participate

    … could be lots of reasons

    [ digression about W3C Patent Policy and licensing … ]

    SG: the PointerEvents versus TouchEvents already creates a fork
    in the web

    … If we could get Msft to participate, that would be great

    … Otherwise, we can use a shim to normalize

    DS: I can approach Microsoft again if people think that would
    be useful

    RB: yes, I think so

    AB: me too

    RB: we have looked at PointerEvents

    … like it more than TouchEvents

    SG: yes, that's a good idea (for Doug to talk to Microsoft)

    <Cathy> +1

    … If there is a shim, it would be easier to write once for
    PointerEvents rather than twice for TouchEvents

    <mbrubeck> Yes, I think we should gather consensus and present
    it to Microsoft as an argument in favor of participation

    <scribe> ACTION: doug Talk to Microsoft about PointerEvents
    vis-a-vis TouchEvents v2 [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-95 - Talk to Microsoft about
    PointerEvents vis-a-vis TouchEvents v2 [on Doug Schepers - due

    RB: the PointerEvents model includes Gesture events

    … can this WG go there i.e. gesture events?

    DS: that raises some concerns for me

    SG: Microsoft just changed their gestures

    … added a new touch action

    … can do custom gestures

    … when I say "just changed", I mean June


    AB: we have a couple of topics we couldn't get to
    ... what about TEv1 tests?

    MB: the action I took earlier isn't needed but I could take an
    action to determine what needs to be done

    RB: I can take a look at the test suite

    AB: if you have any comments Rick, please send them to the list

    <mbrubeck> ACTION: mbrubeck Make a list of remaining work
    needed to complete the v1 test suite. [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-96 - Make a list of remaining work
    needed to complete the v1 test suite. [on Matt Brubeck - due

    AB: meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: brubeck Merge touch event tests to v1 branch
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: doug Talk to Microsoft about PointerEvents
    vis-a-vis TouchEvents v2 [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: mbrubeck Make a list of remaining work needed to
    complete the v1 test suite. [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 16:26:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:34 UTC